Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Habiba Al Marashi


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. While not intensely strong, overall consensus is for the article to be retained, relative to the the weight of the various !votes in relation to notability guidelines and deletion policy. Here's a synopsis:
 * Part of the rationale in the nomination that there is "simply no RS coverage of this person" has been adequately countered in the disucssion. The notion in the nomination of there being "nothing to indicate notability" appears to possibly be in reference to the state of sourcing at the time the article was nominated for deletion (diff), when it only had two sources (one inline citation and one external link). The nominator did not state whether or not they performed additional source searches to better determine notability or lack thereof.
 * The first delete !vote following the nomination is basing notability entirely upon the state of sourcing in the article. However, per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles themselves. Rather, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources"; "notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article." As such, this !vote carries no weight, because it is based upon personal opinion, rather than notability guidelines.
 * The redirect !vote states that in-depth coverage in reliable sources is lacking. However, a significant majority of users that provided guideline-based rationales disagree with this notion.
 * The delete !vote below this states that none of the sources are "independent and some of it is paid and none of it is in-depth", but no evidence is provided to qualify these claims. Furthermore, a significant majority of users that provided guideline-based rationales appear to disagree with some or all of this.
 * Most of the keep !votes for the article to be retained are rather generic, and the discussion would have benefitted from more in-depth source analysis from all participants. North America1000 10:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Habiba Al Marashi

 * – ( View AfD View log )

There is simply no RS coverage of this person. There is nothing to indicate notability. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment I’ve linked to the ar.wiki article. There are some Arabic sources coming up on Google, but I haven’t been through them yet to see if they amount to a good case for notability. Mccapra (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia articles need 3rd party indepdent coverage, which is entrirely lacking in the article. Unless someone shows the willingness to actually add such sources to the article there is no reason to deem the person is notable enough to keep the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I just added two sources in two minutes - if you Google her, you get the media coverage. Come on, folks, do at least a basic BEFORE before nominating for deletion!!! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Emirates Environmental Group, The article is short, the coverages are not in-depth or when it is, it is not from reliable source (Khaleej times article seems not independent). Chirota (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Good grief. The Khaleej Times is a national daily newspaper, one of three in the Emirates. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree Khaleej times is RS but the article here seems from a contributor and not from a staff, so the it must follow SPS and seems not independent. Chirota (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The writer's email is nivriti@khaleejtimes.com, given in the header of the article. She's KT staff. I added a couple more sources - there are very, very many out there. She's a prominent and highly notable lady. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Google search resulted in enough media coverage from reliable sources to support WP:NBIO. Roulisegee (talk) 04:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC) — Roulisegee (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep per WP:GNG. The nominator needs to do a WP:BEFORE. Riteboke (talk) 08:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. None of it is independent and some of it is paid and none of it is in-depth.    scope_creep Talk  10:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You have to be kidding me. Have you CLICKED on the Google News link given in the nomination? Seriously? There are years and years of coverage of this clearly notable person. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per WP:GNG, based on what I'm seeing from news sources. The subject is included in this book but I don't know whether that's a reliable source. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep there is sufficient coverage in RIS to demonstrate notability. Mccapra (talk) 05:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.